May 2008
Volume 49, Issue 13
Free
ARVO Annual Meeting Abstract  |   May 2008
Corneal vs. Skin ERGs in a Patient Population
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • L. E. Leguire, IV
    Ophthalmology, Nationwide Childrens Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
    Ophthalmology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
  • P. Shah
    College of Medicine The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
  • M. McGregor
    Ophthalmology, Nationwide Childrens Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
    Ophthalmology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
  • G. Rogers
    Ophthalmology, Nationwide Childrens Hospital, Columbus, Ohio
    Ophthalmology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio
  • Footnotes
    Commercial Relationships  L.E. Leguire, None; P. Shah, None; M. McGregor, None; G. Rogers, None.
  • Footnotes
    Support  Ohio LIONS Eye Research Foundation
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science May 2008, Vol.49, 2224. doi:https://doi.org/
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      L. E. Leguire, IV, P. Shah, M. McGregor, G. Rogers; Corneal vs. Skin ERGs in a Patient Population. Invest. Ophthalmol. Vis. Sci. 2008;49(13):2224. doi: https://doi.org/.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Purpose: : While 71% of Electrophysiology labs perform ERGs exclusively utilizing corneal ERG electrodes of their equivalent, 29% of labs perform skin ERGs exclusively or some of the time3. However, reliability and validity of skin ERGs have not been established in a patient population.

Methods: : To assess skin ERGs, the charts of 100 patients who had successive skin and corneal (JET electrode) ERGs performed during the same ERG session were analyzed for test-retest reliability and validity. B-wave amplitude and latency were assessed for light-adapted ERGs (achromatic and pure cone flicker) and for dark-adapted ERGs (rod-only and maximum rod + cone response).

Results: : The test-retest reliability of corneal and skin ERGs were highly significant (p<.0001 or less). For the corneal ERG, reliability ranged from .767 to .988, depending on condition. For skin ERGs, reliability ranged from .852 to .971. Direct comparison of skin to corneal ERGs revealed highly significant correlations for all conditions (p<.0001 or less) and ranged from .43 to .85. However, skin ERGs were found to be less sensitive than the corneal ERGs, based on linear regression analysis, sensitivity and specificity measures.

Keywords: electroretinography: clinical • electrophysiology: clinical 
×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×